Foot in the Door Young people in private rental

Prepared by Lauren Brown (Project Lead)

and Gemma Luckett (Research Lead)

June 2019

Pilot & Evaluation Report

2

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 3

1. Background .............................................................................................................................. 4 1.1. Overview of the Foot in the Door Program .......................................................................... 4 1.2. Context and Need for Program ............................................................................................... 4 1.3. Target Population ....................................................................................................................... 4 1.4. Foot in the Door Pilot ................................................................................................................. 4

2. Evaluation Framework ......................................................................................................... 5 2.1. Purpose .......................................................................................................................................... 5 2.2. Key Evaluation Questions ........................................................................................................ 5 2.3. Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 5 2.4. Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 6

3. Design and Development Process ..................................................................................... 6 3.1. Research and Consultation ...................................................................................................... 6 3.2. Contractors and External Resources .................................................................................... 7 3.3. Relationships and Networks ................................................................................................... 7

4. Activities and Outputs .......................................................................................................... 7 4.1. Training Materials and Tangible Outputs ........................................................................... 7 4.2. Promotion and Incentives ........................................................................................................ 8

5. Outcomes .................................................................................................................................. 9 5.1. Attendance and Satisfaction .................................................................................................... 9 5.2. Change in Knowledge and Attitude .....................................................................................10 5.3. Barriers to Achieving Outcomes ..........................................................................................11

6. Limitations of the Evaluation ....................................................................................... 12

7. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 13

8. Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 13

Appendix A: Materials and Images ........................................................................................ 14

Appendix B: Program Logic ..................................................................................................... 16

3

Executive Summary Foot in the Door is a training program for members of the Real Estate Industry. The aim of the training is to increase knowledge about youth homelessness and change attitudes about young people as tenants. This is expected to result in improved access to private rental tenancies for young people experiencing homelessness.

A two-month pilot of Foot in the Door showed the program to be well received and successful among Real Estate Property Managers.

The pilot included:

• 5 face-to-face training sessions: inner Sydney; Armidale; Orange; Port Macquarie; South West Sydney.

• 1 webinar delivered by Yfoundations via REINSW.

• 5 presentations and info stalls hosted at REINSW roadshows.

Overall, 150 people attended Foot in the Door training: 43 face-to-face; and 1071 through webinar. A further 118 Property Managers were reached through the REINSW Roadshows.

Satisfaction with Foot in the Door was high. The webinar retention rate was 100%; and face-to-face training achieved a Net Promoter Score of 64.

On average, Foot in the Door significantly improved attendee’s understanding and competency around youth homelessness. The majority of Real Estate Industry attendees reported improved:

• knowledge about youth homelessness (58%)

• knowledge about trauma (50%)

• ability to recognise behavior associated with trauma (50%)

• confidence to connect a tenant with a youth worker (75%)

• knowledge of the subsidies and supports available to young tenants (67%)

Foot in the Door achieved outcomes beyond what was expected in the few months it was piloted: young people were connected with private rental opportunities; and Property Managers implemented new practices to support young tenants.

Further opportunities to improve young people’s access to private rental tenancies were also identified through this pilot. It is recommended that the Foot in the Door program be extended, and there be further investment into building and supporting connections between Specialist Homelessness Service (SHS) and the Real Estate Industry.

1 Based on a conservative estimate by REINSW of 3 people watching per business registration

4

1. Background

1.1. Overview of the Foot in the Door Program

The aim of the Foot in the Door program is to increase access to private rental housing for young people, aged 18 to 24 years, who are accessing SHS, and for whom private rental would be suitable. That is, they have the living skills and available support to sustain tenancy.

It is reasoned that stereotypes and limited information about youth homelessness within the Real Estate Industry may be a barrier to young people trying to exit homelessness into the private rental market. Foot in the Door aims to reduce these barriers by increasing Property Managers’ knowledge about youth homelessness, trauma, and the financial and psychosocial supports available to young people.

Foot in the Door is a training program targeted at members of the Real Estate Industry. The Foot in the Door training package includes slides and attendee workbook. The training is designed to be delivered face-to-face to a group of up to 15, or by live webinar.

Promotion of upcoming sessions is a critical aspect of the Foot in the Door training program. Promotional activities include: Industry-wide communications; door-to-door visits; and presentations at Industry events. To support promotion, the Foot in the Door package includes branded promotional resources: electronic flyers; brochures; information videos; Eventbrite online registration template.

As an incentive, Foot in the Door training contributes to continued professional development (CPD). Real Estate Industry attendees of Foot in the Door face-to-face training can claim half their annually required CPD credits.

1.2. Context and Need for Program

Reducing youth homelessness by 2019 has been a NSW Premier’s Priority. Increasing access to the private rental market is a key strategy under this Priority. Yfoundations received a grant from NSW Family and Community Services (FaCS) to develop and pilot a training and engagement program for property managers, that increases their knowledge on trauma and youth homelessness, and breaks down stigma. At the same time, FaCS has expanded initiatives such as Rent Choice Youth, which is aimed at supporting young people entering private rental tenancies.

1.3. Target Population

The target audience for the Foot in the Door training resources is the Real Estate Industry, specifically Property Managers. The population the program aims to ultimately impact is young people aged 18 to 24 years who are SHS clients and with support would be able to sustain a private tenancy.

1.4. Foot in the Door Pilot

Foot in the Door was piloted from April to May 2019 by Yfoundations. It was funded by NSW Family and Community Services (FaCS), and supported by the Real Estate Institute of NSW (REINSW).

The pilot project involved development of the training program, as well as program delivery and evaluation. During the pilot, the following Foot in the Door training was delivered:

• 5 face-to-face training sessions: inner Sydney; Armidale; Orange; Port Macquarie; South West Sydney.

• 1 webinar delivered by Yfoundations via REINSW.

Information about young people in private tenancy was also shared and awareness raised through:

• 5 presentations and info stalls hosted at REINSW roadshows.

• 1 presentation at the Women in Real Estate conference

• 2 presentations at organisational or district level conferences

5

2. Evaluation Framework

2.1. Purpose

This report meets reporting requirements and provides evidence to inform future decisions relating to program improvement, funding, and endorsement. Included is:

• Data on activities, outputs and outcomes, required by NSW Family and Community Services

(FaCS)

• Data on relevance and quality of training, required for future REINSW endorsement. Noting that accreditation and CPD standards in the Real Estate Industry are to be made more stringent by either Fair Trading or REINSW.

• Data on the program’s impact

2.2. Key Evaluation Questions

The key questions the evaluation aimed to explore are:

1. Are real estate agents satisfied with the Foot in the Door training?

2. Does the Foot in the Door training contribute to changes in real estate agents’ knowledge and attitudes relating to homeless young people?

3. Across the pilot project what worked well and what could be improved?

2.3. Methodology

The Foot in the Door pilot was both a program to increase young people’s access to private tenancy; and a project to design and develop the program and materials. As such, the evaluation includes program and post-project evaluation methods.

Program Evaluation

The program evaluation was mainly quantitative and focused on early outcomes among Foot in the Door attendees.

Face-to-face attendees from the Real Estate Industry were invited to complete a hardcopy self-report post-training survey. Non-responses were followed-up via email with a link to an online version of the survey.

Change in knowledge and competency was measured by comparing retrospective pre-training and post-training self-ratings. This method, compared to a tradition pre- post-self-assessment, controls for response-shift bias.

Post-Project Evaluation

The post-project evaluation focused on the activities and outputs including: program design and development; stakeholder engagement; and delivery. This evaluation was informed by review of administrative records on activities and outputs; records of feedback from stakeholders; and a semi-structured interview with the Project Lead.

6

2.4. Data Analysis

Quantitative data was analysed in Excel, after being striped of any personal identifiers. Qualitative data was reviewed for themes. Interpretation and explanation was iterative between Research and Project Leads.

Specific Calculations

Satisfaction data was converted from a 5 point Likert scale into proportions, with ‘satisfied’ and ‘strongly satisfied’ coded as satisfied.

Net Promoter Score was calculated using the formula:

(𝑛𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑟 − 𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟)

𝑛Χ 100

where

n is agents who responded to question

𝑛𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑟 is agents who responded in the 9 – 10 range

𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 is agents who responded in the 0-6 range

Change in knowledge was analysed using two-ended paired t-tests, with 0.05 alpha coefficient.

3. Design and Development Process

3.1. Research and Consultation

Foot in the Door is based on research and evidence, and was developed in consultation with stakeholders from the Real Estate Industry, FaCS, and SHS

Training Format

The format and delivery of the training package was informed by review of current grey literature on presentation and learning styles. Input was sought from community service agencies that had previously delivered training to the Real Estate Industry. This informed how content was presented, in particular, the inclusion of audiovisual.

Training Content

REINSW was consulted prior and during throughout drafting of content. Two members of the Real Estate Industry also provided in-depth advice and feedback on what content was most relevant; the Real Estate Industry language; and how to best to engage the Real Estate Industry.

A rapid literature review was conducted focusing on current research on trauma, as well as private rental and youth homelessness. Materials about trauma published by the Blue Knot Foundation were reviewed and referenced. Yfoundations also consulted an academic trauma expert from Western Sydney University

Statistics on homelessness were extracted from data published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

Desktop review of programs and subsidies was conducted, and specific details about services and supports came directly from SHS providers. This included living skills, which was identified by stakeholders from the Real Estate Industry as a key concern when approving tenancy applications from young people.

Content about lived-experience was developed in collaboration with SHS providers and young people aged 18 years and older. The young people with featured in the lived-experience videos had creative control of their script and the final edit of their footage.

Final content was also reviewed and approved by FaCS.

Accompanying Materials

SHS managers and staff were consulted about Foot in the Door at Partner Facilitation Groups (PFGs). When asked what they would need in order to reach out and invite local Real Estate Agencies, they said information on what to say and materials such as brochures.

7

3.2. Contractors and External Resources

Deliverables requiring technical skill-sets, such as graphic design and videography, were subcontracted.

Working with subcontractors who had little understanding of youth homelessness created challenges. Translating a complex and sensitive content into appropriate and meaningful visuals was difficult. Subcontractors who were required to work directly with people with lived experience did so under the Project Lead’s supervision and, were required to adjust their usual practice. The Project Lead was also onsite to support the young persons being filmed.

3.3. Relationships and Networks

REINSW

The relationship fostered between Yfoundations and REINSW was essential to the success of this project and the quality of the final products. REINSW was a key collaborator and supporter throughout the project. They provided invaluable industry insight; opportunities and channels to reach members of the Real Estate Industry; webinar facilities and hosting; waving of the standard fees of their Roadshows.

Furthermore, REINSW endorsement validated Foot in the Door within the Real Estate Industry.

State Government

The success of Foot in the Door drew on existing relationships with Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC) and FaCS. Both provided facilities to deliver training, and facilitated local connections. The relationships with both departments and their engagement with this project was a springboard for further collaboration on mutually beneficial projects they are delivering such as housing data dashboards; and reforms to Rent Choice products.

4. Activities and Outputs

4.1. Training Materials and Tangible Outputs

Content of Training

Foot in the Door includes content on:

• Purpose and context of the training

• Understanding youth homelessness

• The role of and benefit to the Real Estate Industry (including self-reflective activity)

• Trauma awareness and trauma-informed tenancy management

• The role of SHS in supporting youth tenancies

• Rent Choice Youth and similar products

• Communicating about youth tenancies with landlords

• How to access and work with SHS

Face to Face Training

Sessions were two-and-a-half hours each. Training materials included training slides; attendee workbooks; and two 3-4 minute lived-experience videos. Training was hosted in community or Government spaces, with morning/afternoon tea provided to encourage networking.

Webinar

The webinar was one hour. Modified slides were created specifically for this format. The webinar was live, allowing for question and answer throughout.

Roadshows

REINSW annually hosts a Roadshow series across NSW, aimed at training and skill building. At the Roadshows Foot In The Door was introduced by 10-minute presentation, encouraging attendees to further engage with the Project Lead at the Foot in the Door information stall. Brochures and other promotional materials were distributed, and the lived-experience videos were screened at the information stall.

8

4.2. Promotion and Incentives

Promotion

Yfoundations promoted Foot in the Door to potential attendees from the Real Estate Industry directly, and through the local SHS and FaCS staff.

Direct promotion was most effective, especially face-to-face visits to local Agencies and cold-emails in the weeks prior to training.

The Project Lead found visiting local areas provided opportunities to promote and to gain information about the existing local dynamics between Real Estate, SHS and, Community Housing Providers (CHPs); and the housing options available locally.

SHS staff were not as active in promoting Foot in the Door as expected. That being said, several SHS attendees did propose future invitees after they had personally attended the training. There were suggestions to invite managers of caravan parks and hotels that were locally known to be safe and offer longer-term affordable accommodation under secure tenancy agreements. Yfoundations does not necessarily advocate for young people to be placed in hotel rooms or caravan parks. However, considering this is a reality within our current system, broadening the audience of Foot in the Door to include hotel and caravan park managers may benefit young people.

Communication was a barrier for promotion through FaCS. Contact details for local Rent Choice Youth Officers were not easily accessible, and four of the five contacted did not respond. An email from FaCS Head Office resulted in some Rent Choice Youth Officers attending Foot in the Door, but did not translate into invites to their Real Estate contacts.

TABLE 1: YFOUNDATIONS PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES Audience

Type of Promotion* Real Estate Industry

SHS/CHP NSW FaCS Total

Industry wide coms** 6 21 - 27

Introductory calls*** 27 5 7 39

Introductory emails*** 276 7 11 294

Door-to-door site/office visits*** 64 7 - 71

Meetings (including by phone) 8 14 11 33

Other events 2 2 - 4

* Only includes promotion written or directly delivered by Yfoundations. Does not include the other communication such as asking to be referred to a contact or follow-up. ** Includes communication across NSW or a region. *** Introducing Foot in the Door.

Incentives to Attend

CPD credits were not a strong incentive for Property Managers to attend Foot in the Door. No attendees indicated that they intended on claiming the CPD credits. CPD credit will likely to be a more valued incentive after accreditation and CPD standards are tightened.

9

5. Outcomes

5.1. Attendance and Satisfaction

Registration

There were 126 registrations in total for Foot in the Door: 83 for a webinar and 43 for face-to-face training.

Attendance

Overall, 150 people attended Foot in the Door training: 43 face-to-face; and 1072 through webinar. A further 118 Property Managers were reached through the REINSW Roadshows.

Although the Foot in the Door training was designed for Real Estate Industry, it attracted a broader audience. The Real Estate Industry made-up 58% of the face-to-face attendance. The remainder was from government, SHS, and CHPs.

TABLE 2: FACE-FACE ATTENDANCE

Location

Attendance

Real Estate Industry Other Total

Inner City 6 1 7 Liverpool 7 11 18 Orange 5 1 6 Armidale 1 3 4 Port Macquarie

6 2 8

Satisfaction with Training

Attendees were highly satisfied with the training. Foot in the Door achieved a Net Promoter Score of 64 from Real Estate Industry attendees. This is considered excellent, and is above the training industry benchmark of 433.

Real Estate attendees universally agreed that the Foot in the Door face-to-face training: had clearly defined objectives; encouraged participation; was easy to follow; had helpful handout materials; and an engaging trainer. Most also agreed that it was relevant to their work.

Satisfaction with webinars is shown by 100% retention to the end. Feedback passed on by REINSW was overwhelmingly positive, and reflects both the quality and need for this training:

“Thanks you very much REI. Great webinar, content and presenter.”

“Excellent webinar will there be another webinar on this topic?”

TABLE 3: ELEMENTS OF QUALITY TRAINING

Element Proportion* Agree

Objectives were clearly defined 100%

Participation was encouraged 100%

Topics were relevant to work 92%

Organised so easy to follow 100%

Handouts helpful 92%

Trainer engaging 100%

*Denominator: attendees from the Real Estate Industry who responded (n=12)

2 Based on a conservative estimate by REINSW of 3 people watching per business registration

3 Benchmark from KnowledgeAdvisors

10

5.2. Change in Knowledge and Attitude

Knowledge

Foot in the Door significantly increased Real Estate attendee’s understanding of youth homelessness, trauma and supports. The largest improvements were in confidence to connect a tenant with a youth worker; and knowledge of the subsidies and supports.

TABLE 4: KNOWLEDGE AND COMPETENCIES GAINED

Area of Competency

Averages* (1 is low and 5 is high)

Statistically Significant Pre-

training Post-training Change

Knowledge about youth homelessness 3.1 4.3 1.2 Yes Knowledge about trauma 3.5 4.3 0.8 Yes Ability to recognize behavior associated with trauma 3.5 4.2 0.7 Yes Confidence to connect a tenant with a youth worker 2.8 4.5 1.8 Yes

Knowledge of the subsidies and supports available to young tenants

2.5 4.2 1.8 Yes

*Mean of attendees from the Real Estate Industry who responded (n=12)

Attitude

Post Foot in the Door training, Real Estate attendees generally had positive attitudes towards young people experiencing homelessness and towards young people as tenants.

TABLE 4: BELIEFS ABOUT HOMELESS YOUNG PEOPLE Statement Number of

Responses (n)

Proportion Agree General Population* Comparison

Positive Statements

All homeless young people deserve a chance 11 91% 86%

Homeless young people are as responsible as other young people

7 71% 87%

Homeless young people tend to be able to take care of themselves

10 20% 60%

Negative Statements

Trying to help homeless young people is pointless 10 0% 7%

Homeless young people are irresponsible 10 0% 13%

Homeless young people tend to be lazy 11 18% 27%

Homeless young people attract trouble 7 14% 40%

*Based on 15 respondents who had not worked in the homelessness sector and had not experienced homelessness themselves. Original responses were on a 6 point Likert Scale, which was coded to be binary. Interpret with caution – sample sizes were small and differences between the survey and comparison group were not statistically significant.

11

TABLE 5: BELIEFS ABOUT HOMELESS YOUNG PEOPLE AS TENANTS Statement Number of

Responses Proportion Agree General Population*

Comparison

Positive Statements

A homeless young person is just as likely to be a good tenant as anyone else

10 90% -

A homeless young person wouldn't be any more difficult as a tenant than other people

10 60% 83%

Negative Statements

A tenancy with a homeless young person is likely to end poorly

11 0% 0%

A homeless young person wouldn’t be able to pay rent 10 20% 42%

A tenancy with a homeless young person would be risky 10 20% 25%

A homeless young person is likely to be an irresponsible tenant

10 10% -

A homeless young person would need some extra support as a tenant

9 89%

100%

*Based on 12 respondents who had not worked in the homelessness sector and had not experienced homelessness themselves. Original responses were on a 6 point Likert Scale, which was coded to be binary. Interpret with caution – sample sizes were small and differences between the survey and comparison group were not statistically significant.

Behaviour and Impact

Outcomes relating to behavior change and longer-term impact were not expected within the timeframe of the pilot, and were therefore not specifically measured in the evaluation. However, there are examples of outcomes being achieved beyond what was expected.

One Real Estate Agency, following Foot in the Door, is planning to provide information about tenancy support as standard practice, and reached out to Yfoundations:

I would be interested in a brochure that has contact information of different services or organisations that potential tenants can contact to obtain assistance or support in securing private housing.

Our idea is to have this available to give to potential tenants when discussing their housing needs and tenancy application.

Promotion at Industry events such as Women in Real Estate and REINSW Roadshows resulted in:

• Several Property Managers enquired about services and supports for exciting young tenants and were connected with local SHS services.

• A Property Manager in an urban area came forward with 15 properties ready to rent. Barriers were encountered when connecting young people with these rental opportunities. In particular, identifying and communicating with the appropriate contacts within local SHS and FaCS Office. Several young people have now inspected the properties. However, this occurred only after the local FaCS Rent Choice Youth Officer was personally introduced to the Property Manager at Foot in the Door training five months later.

5.3. Barriers to Achieving Outcomes

This pilot enabled the identification and better understanding of barriers to young people accessing private tenancies. These barriers are detailed below. For proposals to overcome these barriers see the recommendations section.

SHS Engagement and Resources

Foot in the Door aimed to make private rental more accessible for young people by changing beliefs and understandings within the Real Estate Industry. For this to occur, first the Real Estate Industry needs to be aware of and attend Foot in the Door. The Real Estate Industry need to able to easily connect with SHS and potential tenants.

The original Foot in the Door model expected SHS to promote and network with their local Real Estate Industry. It is not absolutely necessary that SHS promote Foot in the Door. Therefore, this need not be a barrier to future delivery. However, for young people to enter and be supported to sustain tenancies, their needs to be a way for the Real Estate Industry and SHS to connect. Connecting Property

12

Managers with properties available to SHS with potential tenants was a major barrier experienced during the pilot. Antidotal evidence suggests several possible barriers for SHS engaging with Foot in the Door and the Real Estate Industry more broadly.

Firstly, networking and relationship building is an activity that requires time and resources. Not all SHS are funded or resourced to do this within current contracts. In these cases, Real Estate Industry engagement would require resources to be diverted from service delivery to young people.

Secondly, Real Estate Industry engagement is a specific skill-set that requires competency and confidence in networking, as well as sound understanding of the Real Estate Industry. The Project Lead observed that although SHS attendees allocated time to Foot in the Door and were supportive of the program, few took advantage of the opportunity to network with Real Estate Industry attendees.

Thirdly, negative attitudes held by SHS about the Real Estate Industry may be a barrier. Several SHS workers expressed low expectations about the Real Estate Industry being interested in Foot in the Door and being receptive of young people as tenants. Beliefs and attitudes influence behavior. A worker who believes that the Real Estate Industry will never provide tenancies for young clients is unlikely to invest in Real Estate Industry engagement. That being said, attitudes can change: SHS workers seemed more enthusiastic about Foot in the Door training after they heard a colleague who had attended ‘champion’ it.

Duplication, Gaps and Confusion in the System

In areas there are several community organisations and programs that require engagement with the local Real Estate Industry. For example, Rent Choice required FaCS and SHS to engage; head leased social housing required CHPs to engage; and programs such as Way2Home require mental health and other community services to engage. As a result, some Real Estate Agencies are being approached by several organisations that, from the perspective of the Real Estate Industry, provide essentially the same program (housing and support to people in need) and are competing for affordable rental properties. This has led to confusion and frustration within some local Real Estate Industry.

Within these organisations, responsibility of working with the Real Estate Industry may be one person’s role or it may be diffused responsibility across many workers. As a result, it is difficult to identify and connect with the appropriate contact. This lack of coordination across the system has meant that Property Managers with available properties available have are not connecting with the appropriate person and therefore young people are being denied the tenancies available to them.

Young People’s Access to FaCS Housing Products

When asked about barriers during consultation, SHS talked about their experiences supporting young people to access FaCS housing products such as. Rent-Choice Youth had created restrictions for young people who wanted to move outside the area they were approved. Delays in Rentstart Bond approvals had resulted in young people losing tenancies they had been approved for.

The Project Lead also observed confusion about what products were locally available and eligibility criteria and that this information is either not easily accessible or publically available. That a local SHS and FaCS did not agree on whether Rent Choice Youth was available in one area exemplifies the barrier this creates.

Local Housing Availability

Lack of affordable private rental properties and competing demand for them was also raised as a barrier. Particularly in rural university towns and higher socio-economic urban areas.

6. Limitations of the Evaluation Time and resources were the main constraints of this pilot and evaluation. Timeframes prevented measurement of the medium-term or long-term outcomes shown in Appendix B.

Limited resources made it necessary to conduct the evaluation in-house. Limited resources restricted the scope of the sample population; possible evaluation methods; and ability to follow up on missing responses. Low response rates to the pre-training surveys prevented analysis of change in attitudes.

13

7. Conclusion The Foot in the Door training was well received within the Real Estate Industry, and increased understanding about youth homelessness.

Hearing about youth homelessness services in their local area was important to Property Managers: knowing what is available and where to go. Property Managers were more receptive to young people as tenants than expected. The program achieved some positive outcomes in a considerably shorter timeframe than predicted, such Property Managers proactively seeking young tenants.

Engagement from the SHS sector was not as strong as hoped. Anecdotal evidence suggests this may be due to existing attitudes about the Real Estate Industry, understandings of roles and responsibilities within local SHSs and CHPs; and barriers to identifying and connecting with appropriate contacts across industries.

The ultimate goal of Foot in the Door is that young people be housed in secure stable tenure. Fostering willingness within the Real Estate Industry is one part of achieving this outcome. Building and supporting connections between the sector and the Real Estate Industry is also integral to achieving this outcome.

8. Recommendations

Recommended for FaCS:

• Extend funding of Foot in the Door by 18 months to enable more members of the Real Estate Industry to be reached, and evaluation of longer-term outcomes.

• Expand training aimed at the Real Estate Industry to other cohorts who may face barriers or prejudices when accessing private rental housing, such as: leavers of domestic and family violence; and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

• Review, at local area level, programs that require SHS, CHP, FaCS Officers, and other organisations to engage with the Real Estate Industry. Based on this review and further Industry consultation, explore options to coordinate community sector engagement with Real Estate Industry.

• Invest in a centralised platform to connect young people in SHS with private rental properties Property Mangers have available. This should integrate with current platforms used within the Real Estate Industry. Yfoundations has built Industry relationships through which a platform could be developed and implemented.

• Provide more specific information about eligibility criteria for programs and subsidies.

• Streamline and reduce delays in processing of time-sensitive subsidies such as Rentstart Bond.

Recommendations for Yfoundations or other trainer:

• Develop training in close consultation with the Real Estate Industry to ensure it is engaging,

relevant and uses Industry language.

• Leverage and tie training into existing events, such as future REINSW Roadshows.

• Add structured and facilitated networking activities to the training package.

• Investigate barriers to SHS engagement and explore ways to overcome these barriers through further sector consultation.

• Develop a resource aimed at SHS with information and tips about supporting young person into private rental tenancy from the Real Estate Industry perspective. For example: debunking Real Estate myths; how the Real Estate Industry makes tenancy decisions; the value of reference letters and payment history records from SHS; understanding Real Estate jargon and processes.

14

Appendix A: Materials and Images

Branded Training and Promotional Materials

EVENTBRITE REGISTRATION LINK https://www.eventbrite.com.au/e/foot-in-the-door-young-people-in-private-rental-liverpool-tickets-60391941924

BROCHURE ATTENDEE WORKBOOK

Foot in the Door Registration

WEBINAR LINK https://register.gotowebinar.com/recording/6874575905163943427

SCREENSHOT OF WEBINAR

15

Foot in the Door Delivery

ABOVE AND RIGHT: FACE-TO-FACE TRAINING

BELOW: REINSW ROADSHOW

Appendix B: Program Logic

Inputs and Resources Activities Outputs Outcomes

Immediate Medium Term Long Term Human Resources: Project Lead Design Consultant (Tony) Trauma Consultant (Blue Knot) Research Lead

Funding: NSW FaCS (for project lead salary and travel) Yfoundations (room hire, catering, incentives) Time: Real Estate Agents

Service Providers Young Person (video) In-kind: REI (roadshow, webinar, promotion) Real Estate Agencies (training space) Yfoundations (promotion, website) Existing networks and relationships with

real estate agencies and sector

Project Lead: Background research Write content Direct design consultant Network and promote

Engage local services Coordinate registration Organise logistics Deliver training Coordinate data collection Write reports Design Consultant: Design training and promotional

materials Video young person and agent Develop animation Trauma consultant: Provide expert advice and sign off on training Admin Officer:

Monitor data collection Analyse data Assist to write reports Research Lead: Develop evaluation framework and tools. Provide expert advice

Training slides Training workbook Trainer manual Fact sheet/brochure Short promotional video

Registration invite 5 face-to-face workshops: 2 single agency; 3 multi-agency 5 mobile/roadshow presentations Webinar Evaluation report

REAL ESTATE OUTCOMES

Participate in training. Find training engaging, informative and relevant.

Are more informed about youth homelessness and trauma. Have empathy for youth homelessness and trauma Have reduced stigma towards at-risk young people as tenants.

Increased self-awareness about impact of trauma in own life and lives of family and friends.

Share their learning’s with colleagues. Change in how engage with current and potential tenants aged 18 to 24 years

More likely to inform young tenants about subsidies and supports More likely to recommend a young person as a tenant to a landlord

Change in workplace culture so that more understanding and empathetic of each other. Culture of self-care in workplace.

More productive workplace: Reduced work-place stress. Increased staff retention. Agents proactively seek young tenants from SHS.

LOCAL SERVICE OUTCOMES Aware of Foot in the Door

Engage with Foot in the Door lead Accepts/endorses training package

More positive beliefs about possibility of

young clients entering private rental Use Foot in the Door resources when engaging with real estate agents More likely to talk to young clients about private tenancy options

Refer more young people (who are

ready) to private rental

PARTNERSHIP OUTCOMES (LOCAL REAL ESTATE AGENCIES & SERVICES) Partners share understanding of purpose of partnership. Appropriate people engaged in the partnership

Increased communication between partners Partners understand each other’s the motivations, strengths and constraints. Partners consult each other on decisions

(regarding tenancies of young people). Partnership is robust to staff change

Partners are open and trust each other Partners are able to deal with conflict in positive way Partners feel they gain value from the

partnership Partners see opportunities for future collaboration

OUTCOMES FOR YOUNG PEOPLE

Young people are supported to apply for private rental. More young people enter private tenancies Young people are housed with secure stable tenure.